Rajasthan Court August 2007 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sharad Kumar Tiwari Vs. Laxmi Tiwari
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-2007
Reported in: I(2008)BC410
ORDERG.S. Saraf, J.1. This criminal revision petition has been preferred by the accused petitioner against the judgment dated 15.11.2006 passed by Special Judge. SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Ajmer in Criminal Appeal No. 69/2006 against the judgment dated 13.9.2005 of Judicial Magistrate, First Class (East), Ajmer in Criminal Case No. 13/2004 whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and was sentenced to simple imprisonment for two years and a compensation of Rs. 5 lakh was awarded to the respondent under Section 357(3), Cr.P.C.2. Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the complainant Smt. Laxmi Tiwari filed a complaint against the petitioner wherein it was alleged that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs. 4 lakh from her to purchase a motor vehicle to run it for taxi purpose. The petitioner gave a cheque No. 356824 dated 15.1.2004 of Rs. 4 lakh of Bank of Baroda, J.L.N. ...
Rameshwar Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj713
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated October 1, 2002 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Sikar Camp Sri Madhopur whereby Rameshwar Lal, Nathu Ram and Daulat Ram @ Dholu Ram, appellants herein, were convicted and sentenced under Section 302/34 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The State of Rajasthan however preferred appeal No. 100/2003 challenging the acquittal of co- accused persons.2. It is the prosecution case that on June 22, 2000 at 10 AM informant Jhuntha Ram (Pw.13) submitted a written report (Ex.P- 19) at Police Station Khandela to the effect that in village Dhani Ramdariyab, Prabhu (since deceased) stored Kurdi (manure) over the land of Balaji. Around 6.00 AM Jagu Ram, Rameshwar, Nathu, Shankar, Daulat Ram, Dhuda Ram, Chhotu Ram, Chhoti, Nanchi, Patasi, Bhagli, Vimla and other family members armed with lathis, axes and Kasias came over there ...
Sita Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj602
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Petitioner was initially appointed on work charge basis in January, 1987, however, his services were terminated w.e.f. 1.12.1988. A reference was made in regard to termination of services of the petitioner by the State Government and the Labour Court vide award dated 5.1.1995, while holding the termination of service as illegal and unjustified, ordered for reinstatement with full back wages. The above award dated 5.1.1995 further came to be modified by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4374/1995 vide order dated 24.8.1998. While maintaining the order of reinstatement, this Court held that the petitioner shall be entitled for wages only from the date of award i.e. 5.1.1995. After disposal of the appeal, the petitioner has already been reinstated in service on 26.11.1998. The petitioner has prayed for benefit of semi-permanency and permanency as per Work Charge Service Rules.2. After hearing counsel for the parties, 1 have carefully gone through the material ...
Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj834
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The appellant filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge with the prayer that the action of the respondents depriving the appellant from giving the appointment on the post of sub-Inspector (Police) be held illegal and unreasonable and direction was sought in the name of the respondents to appoint the appellant on the post of Sub-Inspector Police with all consequential benefits. Learned Single Judge, however did not agree with the appellant and vide order dated April 10,2002 dismissed the writ petition. Against this order of the learned Single Judge that the present action for filing the instant special appeal has been resorted to by the appellant.3. Contextual facts depict that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short 'RPSC') issued an advertisement dated January 23, 1996 for Joint Entrance Examination for the post of Sub-Inspector Police under Rajasthan Police Sub-Ordinate Service Rules, 1989 (for sh...
Ramswaroop Vs. Charanjeet Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj3427
R.M. Lodha, J.1. In the application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, 'Act of 2001') by the present respondents No. 1 to 8 (collectively for short, 'the landlord') against the appellant (for short, 'the tenant'), the Rent Tribunal, Ajmer on 8.12.2004 passed an order of eviction against the tenant. The tenant challenged the order dated 8.12.2004 before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer. However that appeal was dismissed on 21.9.2006. The tenant then filed a writ petition before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Rent Tribunal dated 8.12.2004 and the order of the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer dated 21.9.2006. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by the Single Judge on 18.12.2006 and hence the appeal by the tenant.2. The landlord sought eviction of the tenant on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity, material alteration and change of user. According to the landlord the premise...
Ghasi Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj692
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellants, four in number, along with one Akheraj were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Baran, who vide judgment dated August 3, 2002 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:Ghasi Lal, Ram Shyam, Ram Swaroop and Ram Singh:Under Section 302/149 IPC:Each to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.Under Section 323/149 IPC:Each to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days.Under Section 324/149 IPC: Each to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days.Under Section 148 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days.Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Since accused A...
Arpita Singhvi (Miss.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN273
Govind Mathur, J.1. The Government of Rajasthan by an order dt.25.01.2005 enhanced the fee of internship at Government Medical Colleges from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- for the students coming from the Medical Colleges other than the State of Rajasthan. In furtherance to the order a foresaid, the Government of Rajasthan by an order dt. 11.08.2006 settled a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as fee of internship for the students coming to Government Colleges from recognized private medical colleges situated within the territory of the State of Rajasthan. Prior to that the petitioner was admitted to one year internship at S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur and Associated Group of Hospitals on 29.07.2006 by charging a fee of Rs. 5,000/-. The respondents after issuance of the order dt. 11.08.2006, demanded revised fee from the petitioner, hence this petition for writ is preferred.2. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that admission was given to the petitioner in the month of July 2006 and at tha...
Shree Metallic Yarn Industries Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-2007
Reported in: (2009)19VST270(Raj)
ORDERVineet Kothari, J.1. These revision petitions of the assessee filed against the order of Tax Board dated July 16, 2001 raise a short, but interesting question of law for consideration by this Court.2. The question is as to whether the metallic yarn produced and sold by the assessee during the period in question, namely, 1986-87 to 1988-89, is taxable at the rate of 1.5 per cent as 'all kinds of man-made yarn whether synthetic or non-synthetic, cellulosic or non-cellulosic, blended or not and waste thereof', or is taxable at the rate of three per cent as 'badla' under notification dated June 19,1967 (S. No. 130 of J. K. Jain's Book, Vol. 2). The said commodity 'badla', though not a defined term, is used in the notification dated June 19, 1967 along with other items like gota, gota-kinari, salma and sitara. The said notification is reproduced hereunder:S. No. 130 : F.5(56)FDCT/67-2 dated June 19,1967.-In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, ...
Anoop Singh Vs. the Judge, Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR721]; RLW2007(4)Raj3532
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Petitioner has challenged the award dated 16.1.2001 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, by which, the application under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') has been rejected as been not maintainable mainly on the ground that order of termination is discharge simiplicitor and not stigmatic.2. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties I have carefully gone through the material on record.Petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Conductor on daily wages basis vide order dated 25.5.1993 for six months. No further fresh extension order was issued by the respondents. Petitioner continued to work on the post even after expiry of period as mentioned in the initial letter of appointment. His services were terminated suddenly vide order dated 19.5.1995 with immediate effect only on the ground that his services are no more required.The respondents, in reply before the Tribunal, could not explain as to why the services of th...
Pratap Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ4357; RLW2007(4)Raj34
Guman Singh, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated February 27, 2003 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Hindaun City, District Karauli, whereby accused appellant Pratap alias Pradhan was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer additional rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 28-3-2001 at 7.05 p.m. a telephonic message was received at police station Sadar, Alwar wherein it was informed by Rarnaswaroop Gurjar R/o Khedli that Smt. Ram Rati had been murdered by her husband Pradhan in the day, so necessary action be taken in the matter. On the aforesaid message, the police party headed by Sub Inspector Nohbar Singh proceeded to the place of occurrence. On arrival at village Khedli at 8.30 p.m., the informant Ramswaroop Gurjar presented a written report wherein it was stated that...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »